-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 234
IPIP 0499: CID Profiles #499
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
8842176
4ba68f0
6cc64cb
d8b8389
600d1fc
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ | ||
--- | ||
# IPIP number should match its pull request number. After you open a PR, | ||
# please update title and update the filename to `ipip0000`. | ||
title: "IPIP-0499: CID Profiles" | ||
date: 2025-04-03 | ||
ipip: proposal | ||
editors: | ||
- name: Michelle Lee | ||
github: mishmosh | ||
affiliation: | ||
name: IPFS Foundation | ||
relatedIssues: | ||
- https://discuss.ipfs.tech/t/should-we-profile-cids/18507 | ||
order: 0499 | ||
tags: ['ipips'] | ||
--- | ||
|
||
## Summary | ||
|
||
<!--One paragraph explanation of the IPIP.--> | ||
This proposal introduces profiles for IPFS CIDs. Profiles explicitly define CID version, hash algorithm, chunk size, DAG width, layout, and other parameters. | ||
|
||
## Motivation | ||
|
||
Currently, CIDs can be generated with a variety of settings and optimizations for chunking, DAG width, and more. This means the same file can yield multiple, different CIDs depending on which tools and settings are used, and it is not possible to reliably reproduce or verify the CID. Profiles offer With profiles, following the same profile will produce identical CIDs for identical content, whic makes verification regardless of implementation. | ||
|
||
## Detailed design | ||
|
||
We introduce a profile naming system, | ||
|
||
Each profile must specify the following characteristics: | ||
|
||
1. CID version (currently only CIDv0 or CIDv1) | ||
1. Hash algorithm | ||
1. UnixFS Chunk algorithm (e.g. size-based or content-based) | ||
1. UnixFS directory DAG layout (e.g. balanced, trickle) | ||
1. UnixFS file DAG width (max number of links per `File` node) | ||
1. UnixFS directory DAG width (max number of links per basic `Directory` node) | ||
1. UnixFS HAMT directory DAG threshold (max `Directory` size before switching to `HAMTDirectory`) | ||
1. HAMT directory DAG width (max number of fanout links per internal HAMTDirectory node) | ||
1. Leaf Envelope (historically `dag-pb`, CIDv1 introduced `raw` leaves) | ||
1. Empty directories (informative suggestion) | ||
|
||
Additional profiles can be added at a future date. Profile names may be chosen from the names of any botanical tree with compound leaves. | ||
|
||
This would be specified as a table in (forthcoming UnixFS spec). | ||
|
||
## Design rationale | ||
|
||
The profile names are chosen to be easy to pronounce. | ||
|
||
Here is a summary table of current (2025-Q2) defaults, thanks to input & clarifications from @2color @achingbrain @lidel: | ||
|
||
| | Helia default | Kubo `legacy-cid-v0` (default) | Storacha default | Kubo `test-cid-v1` | Kubo `test-cid-v1-wide` | DASL | | ||
|---------------------------------|---------------|-----------------------------------|------------------|--------------------|---------------------------|---------------| | ||
| CID version | CIDv1 | CIDv0 | CIDv1 | CIDv1 | CIDv1 | CIDv1 | | ||
| Hash Algo | sha-256 | sha-256 | sha-256 | sha-256 | sha-256 | sha-256 | | ||
| Chunk size | 1MiB | 256KiB | 1MiB | 1MiB | 1MiB | not specified | | ||
| Max links `File` node | 1024 | 174 | 1024 | 174 | **1024** | not specified | | ||
| Max links `Directory` node | ? | 0 | ? | 0 | 0 | ? | | ||
| Max fanout `HAMTDirectory` node | 256 blocks | 256 blocks | 256 blocks | 256 blocks | **1024** | not specified | | ||
| `HAMTDirectory` threshold | 256KiB (est) | 256KiB (est:links[name+cid]) | 1000 **links** | 256KiB | **1MiB** | not specified | | ||
| DAG layout | balanced | balanced | balanced | balanced | balanced | not specified | | ||
| Leaves | raw | raw | raw | raw | raw | not specified | | ||
| Empty directories | allowed | allowed | disallowed | allowed | allowed | not specified | | ||
|
||
See related discussion at https://discuss.ipfs.tech/t/should-we-profile-cids/18507/ | ||
|
||
### User benefit | ||
|
||
Reliable, deterministic CIDs allow independent verification of content across tools and ipmlementations. | ||
|
||
### Compatibility | ||
|
||
Implementations will need to (1) make CID generation settings configurable and (2) support user setting of profiles. | ||
|
||
Kubo 0.35 will have [`Import.*` configuration](https://github.com/ipfs/kubo/blob/master/docs/config.md#import) option to control DAG width. | ||
|
||
### Security | ||
|
||
TODO | ||
|
||
### Alternatives | ||
|
||
Another approach could be to name profiles based on the key UnixFS/CID parameters, e.g. v1-sha256-balanced-1mib-1024w-raw. This is longer and more convoluted. | ||
|
||
|
||
#### Empty directories | ||
|
||
Decision if empty directories should be included is left out of scope. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @lidel I think we should include this, because the goal of this spec is to make UnixFS encoding deterministic when using the profile, and this stands in the way of this, potentially rendering this whole effort futile if not included. I think the profile should dictate whether empty directories are included. This should also be configurable such that you can adjust to your own needs. On the same note, we should probably also add mention of hidden files which are also excluded by Storacha, Kubo, and Helia by default. |
||
|
||
Tools can apply arbitrary filtering before passing filesystem entries | ||
to be converted into a DAG, thus for 1:1 CID reproducibility one should | ||
run without any prefilters, or ensure the same prefilters are applied. | ||
|
||
## Test fixtures | ||
|
||
TODO | ||
|
||
List relevant CIDs. Describe how implementations can use them to determine | ||
specification compliance. This section can be skipped if IPIP does not deal | ||
with the way IPFS handles content-addressed data, or the modified specification | ||
file already includes this information. | ||
|
||
### Copyright | ||
|
||
Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's about the default behaviour rather than whether empty dirs are allowed.